Formal Opinion 94-387

Max downloads: 8Downloads allowed for: 12 month

Disclosure to Opposing Party and Court That Stature of Limitations Has Run September 26, 1994 A lawyer has no ethical duty to inform an opposing party in negotiations that the statute of limitations has run on her client's claim; to the contrary, it would violate Rules 1.3 and 1.6 to reveal such information without the client's ...

Item Details:

Disclosure to Opposing Party and Court That Stature of Limitations Has Run
September 26, 1994
A lawyer has no ethical duty to inform an opposing party in negotiations that the statute of limitations has run on her client's claim; to the contrary, it would violate Rules 1.3 and 1.6 to reveal such...

Disclosure to Opposing Party and Court That Stature of Limitations Has Run
September 26, 1994
A lawyer has no ethical duty to inform an opposing party in negotiations that the statute of limitations has run on her client's claim; to the contrary, it would violate Rules 1.3 and 1.6 to reveal such information without the client's consent. It follows that where the opposing party and his counsel appear to be unaware that the limitations period has expired, the lawyer may not discontinue negotiations over the claim simply on this ground, in the absence of agreement by her client that she do so. Nor is the lawyer constrained by the rules of ethics from filing suit to enforce a time-barred claim, unless the rules of the jurisdiction preclude it. There is no basis in the ethics rules for holding a lawyer representing a government agency to a different standard in these circumstances than that applicable to a lawyer representing a private client.